It's a good thing it's Halloween. That way it's OK for smear merchants to hide behind masks. I'd bet on the Romney wing of the GOP and all their sycophants in the press that is sold out to Obama's victory. They lurk behind the vampire costume they always choose -- sucking the life's blood out of our people, our culture, and our nation.

A simple point to make: I've seen so much of this "gotcha" garbage in the past that I just don't believe it anymore. At the very best it comes down to purported words that might or might not have been said a couple of very long decades ago.

Are we really going to Clarence Thomas this candidate Herman Cain without even a hair on a coke can?

All it takes now to ruin someone is to say "someone said"?

I haven't really been a sold-out Cain supporter until this. I'll back him to the hilt on this one, though.

If the Liberals were EVER in a position to criticize another politician for anything, they lost that credibility once they whitewashed the obvious and documented BS of the Clinton administration, for 8 years!!!

3
posted on 10/31/2011 8:22:39 AM PDT
by SMARTY
("The people never give up their liberties but under some delusion." Edmund Burke)

As soon as someone steps forward with one shred of substance, then I’ll eat my hat. Until then, it’s far easier to believe in another in an endless chain of media hit jobs than it is to believe in a 20 year old innuendo that can’t even be proven to have been said.

6
posted on 10/31/2011 8:28:42 AM PDT
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)

There are Obama Rat trolls here on Free Republic masquerading as conservatives.

These trolls have a clear intent to bring down republican candidates who have risen in the polls. Obama Rat trolls should be identified and outted.

First with Bachman, then with Perry, now with Cain (and of course, always with Romney), the Obama Rats use a deceptively simple approach.

They camp out on a thread that seems to support a candidate, Cain for example.

They use one-liners and ad hominem insults to attack that candidate, while implying that they support another candidate, for instance, Perry. Then when one visits the Perry threads, that same poster rarely, if ever, appears. When he does, the appearance is luke warm, and mainly directed toward tearing down some other candidate. When challenged, the Obama Rat trolls avoid supporting the candidate they imply that they support.

In addition, the Obama Rats seem to use many of the same talking points, often referring to Mike Huckabee, or some other candidate from the past. They use virulent attacks on individual posters, who disagree with them, to try to drive that poster off the thread.

One need only research the history of comments from suspected Obama Rats to see the pattern.

Obviously, we each have different views on the candidates. Those differing views are worthy of debate.

However, unless a poster starts finding positive points with a candidate, any candidate, with as much vigor as he tears down other candidates, then he is just another shrill Obama Rat troll, not worthy of debate. He should be identified and outted.

Do not underestimate the Obama machine. The following link compares the relative internet capability of that machine utilizing paid staff on Twitter to the significantly lesser capability of each of the republican candidates. Is it even reasonable to presume that the Obama Rats would not have the same capability to influence Free Republic?

These smear attacks do NOT help any of the other GOP candidates. It merely reminds the grass roots why we totally loath the GOP Establishment.

IF they success in destroying Cain with these slime bag tactics of rumor, innuendo and whispers, they will also destroy any chance of any GOP challenger beating O. We are not going to repeat 2008. If you cannot get out of the way GOP Establishment, be prepared to be run over.

If they cannot beat Cain on the issues, then they need to get out the way. Sliming him tells us a whole lot MORE about the people running the GOP machine then it does Cain.

11
posted on 10/31/2011 8:37:03 AM PDT
by MNJohnnie
(Giving more money to DC to fix the Debt is like giving free drugs to addicts think it will cure them)

If there was videotape, verifiably accurate and time-stamped, with no possible alteration, of behavior that I personally could not dismiss with an, "Oh, cut the crap, you're not all that!" and an elbow, I *might* care a little bit.

In the absence of such evidence, the logical assumption is that the story totally made up.

First with Bachman, then with Perry, now with Cain (and of course, always with Romney), the Obama Rats use a deceptively simple approach.

The above is the only part of your post I'd disagree with. I think Obama rats are desperately supporting Romney for the nomination. He is the most beatable of all the candidates. His flip-flopping, liberal, big government approach and his RomneyCare give them something to run against that everyone already agrees on.

Romney actually permits Obama to run to the right of him on a number of issues.

Romney is a disaster. It's wrong even to suggest anything positive about him.

13
posted on 10/31/2011 8:44:34 AM PDT
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)

A simple rejection of a woman who’s looking for a hookup with a rich executive could leave her feeling “angry and disrespected,” or whatever the idiotic claim is.

I’m tired of the hypocrisy. The goal of a substantial percentage of women is to look “sexy” or “hot” every time they leave the house: that is, to arouse lust in the general public. Then they’re offended if it works - if someone expresses sexual interest - and they’re equally offended if a viewer expresses distaste or disinterest.

(Nothing in this general comment on social mores is intended to suggest that Herman Cain ever met the women in question, in the absence of contemporaneous documentary evidence.)

The next set of stories about Herman should include: "Children out of wedlock", "Bad experience at Godfathers", "How the Federal Reserve ruined my life", "National Restaurant Association lobbied for (insert something evil here)", "I found a mouse in my can of Coke while Herman worked for them", "Hot coffee almost killed me at Burger King", "My Pillsbury dough did not rise", "Cain closes Godfathers..."Suicides increase nationwide".

I hate to think that discussing a smear gives any impression other than I despise the smear.

Unfortunately, that's part of the magic of this tactic. It's almost impossible to say anything at all without giving the impression of conceding that there is something to be said - that the people at least met at some point. And yet, even that much has to be proved, or it should be presumed false.

I hear you. Why has he not gotten Secret Service Protection is beyond me. The idiot in cheif got it months before he was even nominated. More liberal double standards.. I tell you this if any thing happens to Herman, there is going to be big trouble for Obama and libs. Then I am afraid Obama will do his thing and suspend the constitution. I pray nothing happens but with commie liberals anything is possible.

During Mondays broadcast of Fox News Channels Happening Now, the suddenly embattled former Godfathers Pizza CEO and Republican presidential front-runner Herman Cain offered a stern denial of allegations, raised in a Sunday Politico story, that he had sexually harassed two women in the late 1990s when he was CEO of the National Restaurant Association.

Ive never sexually harassed anyone, and yes, I was falsely accused while I was at the National Restaurant Association, Cain said. And I say falsely because it turned out after the investigation to be baseless. The people mentioned in that article were the ones who would be aware of any misdoings, and they have attested to my integrity and my character. It is totally baseless, and totally false, never have I committed any sort of sexual harassment.

Herman Cain has been taking heat for his response to questions about Politico’s story on alleged sexual harassment. But today on Morning Joe, it was Politico’s own Jonathan Martin, lead author of the story, who was being evasive about the details of the allegations against Cain.

Incredibly, when Willie Geist asked him to describe specifically what Politico is accusing Cain of having done, Martin hemmed, hawed then ultimately said “we’re just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women,” beyond the sketchy generalities in the Politico story.

WILLIE GEIST: Hey Jonathan, what are the allegations specifically as you understand them? There’s obviously a wide range in sexual harassment. What did he do?

JONATHAN MARTIN: We-, we-, well we have to be careful about that obviously, because we’re sensitive to —

GEIST: Of course —

MARTIN: — the sourcing involved here. And also, what actually happened to these women as well—we want to be sensitive to that, too. It includes both verbal and physical gestures. These women felt uncomfortable, they were unhappy about their treatment, and they complained to both colleagues and senior officials. In one case it involved, I think, inviting a woman up to a hotel room of Cain’s on the road. Um, but, we-, we-, we’re just not going to get into the details of exactly what happened with these women beside what’s in the story.

And remember, as for the details in the Politico story, they are as ambiguous as can be [emphasis added]:

2011-10-31MSNBCMJMartin.JPG”[C]onversations allegedly filled with innuendo or personal questions of a sexually suggestive nature, taking place at hotels during conferences, at other officially sanctioned restaurant association events and at the associations offices. There were also descriptions of physical gestures that were not overtly sexual but that made women who experienced or witnessed them uncomfortable and that they regarded as improper in a professional relationship.”

So part of the alleged sexual harassment consisted of gestures that “were not overtly sexual” but that made people feel “uncomfortable.” Politico is going to have to do better than that. Martin’s evasiveness today was telling.

From the article: “Even if the settlements reference sexual-harassment complaints, its important to remember that settlements in and of themselves dont necessarily mean guilt or innocence. Anyone who has worked with high-ranking executives ­ especially those who have high public profiles ­ knows that they make pretty tasty targets for legal claims, whether warranted or not. For most organizations, its easier and cheaper to settle harassment claims than to fight them.”

That exact point was made by Donald Trump this morning at 7:30 AM on Fox & Friends.

“Well well, what Cain was supposed to have done was not overtly sexual, but some female employees were upset. I’ve been around a number of female employees who have made OVERTLY!!! sexual remarks in public company at work , a number of which were disgusting, and nobody did anything about it. Because we took them for what they were, attempts at humor. Apparently though now, when a conservative Republican is involved, it is a capital offense with the accused, Cain, to be punished without trial or jury.

First off, after Clinton, any criticism about political figures and sexual gestures or behavior of any sort coming from the left is to be laughed off and rejected out of hand. Secondly, if we, conservatives, are at the point of rejecting candidates because they laughed at or made jokes concerning sex, then we are at the end of the movement.”

“...the allegations I heard was that, as I paraphrase....Cain didnt use profane or obscene language but what he verbalized made the woman feel uncomfortable.....as I read somewhere, supposedly he asked a female to join him in his suite.

Second, Cain did not give an offensive gesture but how he was using his hands made the woman uncomfortable....again....very vague. Somewhere I read he supposedly pointed to her boobs or some such. Lookit, this has all the earmarks of a totally bogus story. ...”

“Without denying that real harassment can and does occur, I just think people in general are sick of this kind of accusation. And, most people dont understand the law, or the legal definition - and thus automatically assume the worst. Heres an excerpt from the EEOC website:

Although the law doesnt prohibit simple teasing, offhand comments, or isolated incidents that are not very serious, harassment is illegal when it is so frequent or severe that it creates a hostile or offensive work environment or when it results in an adverse employment decision (such as the victim being fired or demoted).

One persons offhand comment may turn into another persons harassment. Especially if, for example, that person is under pressure for poor performance. I have personally experienced a situation where a female employee made vague allegations of sexual harassment NOT coincidentally, the day after she received a tough performance review.

Anyone can make an allegation. Any molehill can be turned into a mountain inside a persons imagination, or with sufficient motive. Resolving these issues takes time and costs money, and there are cases where a quick settlement that gets the person out of the organization is the expedient route.”

“When someone says sexual harassment we usually think of a situation where the boss says, Have sex with me or Ill fire you. However, the guidelines are so blurred now... there isnt a guy on FR who isnt guilty of it. Let me explain: my husband and his co-workers attended a sexual harassment workshop (deemed required by the state). Did you know that commenting on someones new hairstyle or outfit is considered off limits. A few weeks after the workshop, a gal he works with comes to work. She is sporting a new hairstyle. Well, after several hours.. she gets miffed. Doesnt anyone have anything to say about my new hairstyle?! My husband says, I would like to comment but I wouldnt want to say anything that could be perceived as evaluating you on an appearance rather than work performance. The whole room laughed since every male in there was thinking the same thing.”

This guy—who slammed Herman Cain yesterday—tried to get Sarah Palin, too. She called him a “punk” on Glenn Beck’s Radio show nearly one full year ago. @ 00:48, and further exposes Politico’s method of hatchet jobs and then not retracting nor accepting responsibility afterwards when proven WRONG.

PALIN CLIP HERE ON JONATHAN MARTIN.

Furthermore, this Jonathan Martin (Politico) individual, we have come to find out was:

a) Almost nominated to be in the top 10 of a list of worst liberal journalists in the United States. Helen Thomas went on to claim the top spot.

b) Was exposed as member of the nefarious, underground “JournoList” group of biased, leftist journalists discussing and strategizing how to get Obama elected.

c) Attacked Sarah Palin (as per the link, above), and talk show host Mark Levin also demanded a retraction from this Jonathan Martin individual for unethical journalistic practices.

“The Washington Post’s phony attacks against Marco Rubio, and now Politico’s attack against Herman Cain, are merely the latest efforts to take down “uppity” conservative hispanics and blacks who refuse to toe the “party line” and stay on the DemocRAT Plantation where they belong” ~ Rush Limbaugh Radio Show (paraphrased) 12:15 PM, Monday 10/31/2011

The democrats have no reason to spread garbage about Cain. They don’t worry about Cain. Karl Rove has been known to use every lowlife tactic in the world to gain the advantage. In 2000 McCain was well on his way to winning the SC primary when it was “rumored” that he had a black kid out of wedlock and was also suffering from PTSD. The smear worked and we all know who went on to win the GOP nomination. So please keep this in mind when trying to figure out who started this garbage about Cain, and who it will benefit if he has to withdraw his nomination.

It didn’t mince words. He said it never happened. Couldn’t ask for a more clear response.

Geraldo kept insisting last night for a yes or no to the question “Was a payment made by the restaurant association?”. Lawyer Lis Wiehl thought it was awful not to answer that question. I didn’t think so at all.

I thought it was the question “Did you sexually harrass?” that needed answering. Cain hit that one out of the park. He totally denied the actual accusation.

24
posted on 10/31/2011 9:35:06 AM PDT
by xzins
(Retired Army Chaplain and Proud of It! True Supporters of our Troops PRAY for their VICTORY!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.